Don Wilkins says taking the EIS TO clause in 6b "with OIDATE suggests ...
that the revelation itself is the result of their knowledge, as though he
would not be revealed if they did not know."

Try taking the EIS TO ... as a purpose clause dependent upon OIDATE. The
purpose, then, is not self-determining but from God's perspective. God
had already revealed to them what was then restraining (explained as the
mystery of lawlessness, v. 7) and so they knew what it was. The purpose
of this knowledge of the more mysterious evil was the setting of the
stage so that the man of lawlessness could be revealed to them and that
they would know him. It is also a means of comforting and assuring them
of their sure recognition of him when he was revealed.

Don, how do you explain v. 7? Does it not seem rather abrupt, if one
assumes a good restrainer view in v. 6? It would seem the GAR introduces
an explanation of v. 6 and that we might expect the neuter TO KATECHON of
v. 6 to be explained by the neuter TO MYSTERION ... of v. 7.

> Paul Dixon said, "...They knew this so that EIS TO (the end result or purpose> of which is) they would know and recognize the man of lawlessness when he was> revealed, a fortiori."> > Thanks, Paul, that does help. The problem that I have is in the relationship> between your "so that they would know..." and "when he was revealed". The> only verb in the result clause is "was revealed", and for it to say what you> indicate would take a main verb referring to their knowing, which a subordi-> nate construction referring to the revelation, like a genitive absolute (e.g.> EIS TO hUMAS GINWSKEIN AUTOU APOKALUFQENTOS...KAIRWi; not very pretty, but> that's the idea). As it stands, taking the clause with OIDATE suggests to me> that the revelation itself is the result of their knowledge, as though he> would not be revealed if they did not know (in other words, they are them-> selves responsible for the revelation).> > Don Wilkins> UC Riverside>